(07-07-2014 11:21 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Texas made pretty clear what they want is a smaller conference, with many regional rivals, academically decent (by school president standards), and the ability to continue to control 3rd tier rights (note: unlike a lot of people I definitely don't see anything greedy about that, at least no more so than anyone else's moves).

If they had to make a choice, this is the order I think it would be.

1. Big 12 as is
(long drop)
2. Notre Dame type deal with the ACC (football independent)
3. PAC-16 along with Texas Tech (they'll want another Texas school) and Oklahoma and Oklahoma State
(long drop)
4. Big Ten and SEC

The Big Ten thought the academics and money would sway them and the SEC would like for the football strength and being in a neighboring region to matter. I think Texas won't have a part in either. Like North Carolina and Virginia with the ACC, they see the SEC as beneath them (which is silly, but how a lot of academic thinking goes) and the Big Ten as being too far away in a region they don't want to be in a conference in.

Random note from earlier: Even if the networks wanted realignment (I don't think for a second they do), they can't just throw money to get a conference to take a team it otherwise doesn't want. The conference will know full well that once that contract is up, they won't get paid again. The only way you'll ever have a scenario with Iowa State joining up with Big Ten west schools is you assume one national football league which controls all TV rights for members and then divides equally.

I might suggest that if networks agreed to pay the way of certain schools into a conference that they would not go down on the future rate they would pay for that school, but rather simply not go up quite as much on the others. Their motive for paying for the moves would be to create a more favorable advertising rate structure. While they may not want to pay more for those schools in the future, I think they would be diplomatic enough to mitigate that by simply offering less in the way of increases, , but not less specifically or as a whole.

And there is roughly a 1.5 million increase per school for simply eliminating the 5th share of the playoff money split. The SEC and Big 10 get that per team boost while likely adding 1 revenue generator and 1 paid for tag-along. The ACC could quite possibly better that figure slightly per team because they need only add 1 under the right conditions. The conference it benefits the least is the PAC who might be called upon to add 6. IMO that is the weak link in the division of playoff revenue approach. But the model the networks would be seeking would keep all 4 regions engaged through the semis and the nation watches the finals anyway so the net for them is the highest rate of advertising money throughout the playoffs.

So the way I see it the Big 10 and SEC would have an incentive to take 1 prize and an also ran because it could be orchestrated to generate overall revenue for both. The ACC should jump all over it. But I think the PAC would need two prizes to make it work and the question is are there really 4 prizes in the Big 12?

But as usual I can clearly see the logic out of which you operate.

Interesting piece I read the past day: http://saturdayblitz.com/2014/07/07/conf...nt-future/

Not saying I agree with it but the article aims to follow the pattern of the past few years of realignment (new markets, etc.) and tries to come to a certain conclusion.

(07-08-2014 06:42 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Interesting piece I read the past day: http://saturdayblitz.com/2014/07/07/conf...nt-future/

Not saying I agree with it but the article aims to follow the pattern of the past few years of realignment (new markets, etc.) and tries to come to a certain conclusion.

I don't see Boston College and Syracuse in the Big 10, but it would not be a huge surprise.

If N.C. State and Virginia Tech ever move to the SEC it will be to make room for a western division of 4 schools from the Big 12 and it would be a congenial move.

I think the Big 10 is done in the East without U.N.C. or Virginia. If they expand without those two it will be with 2 from the West perhaps Kansas and Oklahoma.

If the PAC can't attract Texas I don't see them expanding at all.

(07-08-2014 07:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 06:42 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Interesting piece I read the past day: http://saturdayblitz.com/2014/07/07/conf...nt-future/

Not saying I agree with it but the article aims to follow the pattern of the past few years of realignment (new markets, etc.) and tries to come to a certain conclusion.

I don't see Boston College and Syracuse in the Big 10, but it would not be a huge surprise.

If N.C. State and Virginia Tech ever move to the SEC it will be to make room for a western division of 4 schools from the Big 12 and it would be a congenial move.

I think the Big 10 is done in the East without U.N.C. or Virginia. If they expand without those two it will be with 2 from the West perhaps Kansas and Oklahoma.

If the PAC can't attract Texas I don't see them expanding at all.

if the B10 ever wanted Notre Dame and was willing to add an elite academic brand/non research private school block to keep ND from being a cultural academic outlier, they would definitely do it.

(07-08-2014 07:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 06:42 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Interesting piece I read the past day: http://saturdayblitz.com/2014/07/07/conf...nt-future/

Not saying I agree with it but the article aims to follow the pattern of the past few years of realignment (new markets, etc.) and tries to come to a certain conclusion.

I don't see Boston College and Syracuse in the Big 10, but it would not be a huge surprise.

If N.C. State and Virginia Tech ever move to the SEC it will be to make room for a western division of 4 schools from the Big 12 and it would be a congenial move.

I think the Big 10 is done in the East without U.N.C. or Virginia. If they expand without those two it will be with 2 from the West perhaps Kansas and Oklahoma.

If the PAC can't attract Texas I don't see them expanding at all.

The ACC isn't as united as the SEC and B1G. Sure, they just got themselves a GoR, but that's a matter of schools realizing that they had a mutual interest of remaining in the conference. However, the B12 scenario the writer put out isn't as far-fetched as it appears today. It would depend on Texas, Notre Dame, Florida State, Oklahoma according among themselves to an association. Even years after its admittance, a lot of Florida State fans do not feel any affinity towards the culture of the ACC, which gives a lot of importance to Olympic sports and basketball. Maybe it's the older generation that has that attitude but it doesn't seem that different among the younger generations, either.

The last time the B12 hesitated on bringing along Clemson with Florida State, which ultimately led to Florida State re-committing to the ACC. Next time there's a chance it could be different. Where I may quibble with the writer is Pitt. I think Louisville might jump over them if they feel like everyone else is leaving. Maybe the writer feel academics or its historical rivalry with ND would favor Pitt over Louisville.

As for Cuse and BC, I think the ease in which BTN got their deals done with the pay TV systems in NJ, MD, DC and NYC may have perked up the ears of brass at Big Ten headquarters that it may not be as difficult to get BTN into the homes in Massachusetts and the rest of New York State as thought. Sure, cable may not as viable in the future but there still may be a BTN of some kind, whether it's streaming or not. Excluding NYC, the population of the state is roughly over 11,000,000, which is still considerable. Yes, downstate has the disproportionate number of residents. The problem is the economy in the rest of the state has been struggling for a long time. But getting into the systems downstate could help mitigate that factor. Massachusetts has under 6.6 million now, mostly concentrated around Boston. Boston is also the main city in New England. I think if the Big Ten realizes that it can't move past the Potomac then this would be a Plan C (Plan B being KU/OU).

(07-08-2014 11:06 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 07:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 06:42 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Interesting piece I read the past day: http://saturdayblitz.com/2014/07/07/conf...nt-future/

Not saying I agree with it but the article aims to follow the pattern of the past few years of realignment (new markets, etc.) and tries to come to a certain conclusion.

I don't see Boston College and Syracuse in the Big 10, but it would not be a huge surprise.

If N.C. State and Virginia Tech ever move to the SEC it will be to make room for a western division of 4 schools from the Big 12 and it would be a congenial move.

I think the Big 10 is done in the East without U.N.C. or Virginia. If they expand without those two it will be with 2 from the West perhaps Kansas and Oklahoma.

If the PAC can't attract Texas I don't see them expanding at all.

The ACC isn't as united as the SEC and B1G. Sure, they just got themselves a GoR, but that's a matter of schools realizing that they had a mutual interest of remaining in the conference. However, the B12 scenario the writer put out isn't as far-fetched as it appears today. It would depend on Texas, Notre Dame, Florida State, Oklahoma according among themselves to an association. Even years after its admittance, a lot of Florida State fans do not feel any affinity towards the culture of the ACC, which gives a lot of importance to Olympic sports and basketball. Maybe it's the older generation that has that attitude but it doesn't seem that different among the younger generations, either.

The last time the B12 hesitated on bringing along Clemson with Florida State, which ultimately led to Florida State re-committing to the ACC. Next time there's a chance it could be different. Where I may quibble with the writer is Pitt. I think Louisville might jump over them if they feel like everyone else is leaving. Maybe the writer feel academics or its historical rivalry with ND would favor Pitt over Louisville.

As for Cuse and BC, I think the ease in which BTN got their deals done with the pay TV systems in NJ, MD, DC and NYC may have perked up the ears of brass at Big Ten headquarters that it may not be as difficult to get BTN into the homes in Massachusetts and the rest of New York State as thought. Sure, cable may not as viable in the future but there still may be a BTN of some kind, whether it's streaming or not. Excluding NYC, the population of the state is roughly over 11,000,000, which is still considerable. Yes, downstate has the disproportionate number of residents. The problem is the economy in the rest of the state has been struggling for a long time. But getting into the systems downstate could help mitigate that factor. Massachusetts has under 6.6 million now, mostly concentrated around Boston. Boston is also the main city in New England. I think if the Big Ten realizes that it can't move past the Potomac then this would be a Plan C (Plan B being KU/OU).

You lost any credibility with your opening sentence.

(07-09-2014 07:47 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 11:06 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 07:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 06:42 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Interesting piece I read the past day: http://saturdayblitz.com/2014/07/07/conf...nt-future/

Not saying I agree with it but the article aims to follow the pattern of the past few years of realignment (new markets, etc.) and tries to come to a certain conclusion.

I don't see Boston College and Syracuse in the Big 10, but it would not be a huge surprise.

If N.C. State and Virginia Tech ever move to the SEC it will be to make room for a western division of 4 schools from the Big 12 and it would be a congenial move.

I think the Big 10 is done in the East without U.N.C. or Virginia. If they expand without those two it will be with 2 from the West perhaps Kansas and Oklahoma.

If the PAC can't attract Texas I don't see them expanding at all.

The ACC isn't as united as the SEC and B1G. Sure, they just got themselves a GoR, but that's a matter of schools realizing that they had a mutual interest of remaining in the conference. However, the B12 scenario the writer put out isn't as far-fetched as it appears today. It would depend on Texas, Notre Dame, Florida State, Oklahoma according among themselves to an association. Even years after its admittance, a lot of Florida State fans do not feel any affinity towards the culture of the ACC, which gives a lot of importance to Olympic sports and basketball. Maybe it's the older generation that has that attitude but it doesn't seem that different among the younger generations, either.

The last time the B12 hesitated on bringing along Clemson with Florida State, which ultimately led to Florida State re-committing to the ACC. Next time there's a chance it could be different. Where I may quibble with the writer is Pitt. I think Louisville might jump over them if they feel like everyone else is leaving. Maybe the writer feel academics or its historical rivalry with ND would favor Pitt over Louisville.

As for Cuse and BC, I think the ease in which BTN got their deals done with the pay TV systems in NJ, MD, DC and NYC may have perked up the ears of brass at Big Ten headquarters that it may not be as difficult to get BTN into the homes in Massachusetts and the rest of New York State as thought. Sure, cable may not as viable in the future but there still may be a BTN of some kind, whether it's streaming or not. Excluding NYC, the population of the state is roughly over 11,000,000, which is still considerable. Yes, downstate has the disproportionate number of residents. The problem is the economy in the rest of the state has been struggling for a long time. But getting into the systems downstate could help mitigate that factor. Massachusetts has under 6.6 million now, mostly concentrated around Boston. Boston is also the main city in New England. I think if the Big Ten realizes that it can't move past the Potomac then this would be a Plan C (Plan B being KU/OU).

You lost any credibility with your opening sentence.

I think ACC unity has increased a lot and will continue to. I also think the Big Ten/SEC had no chance to take several core ACC programs in the last couple of years (before the grant of rights, now it would be impossible anyway). If the Big Ten could have taken Virginia or North Carolina (or probably Georgia Tech), they would have taken them over Rutgers.

With all that said, I don't think any credibility was lost by saying it wasn't as united the Big Ten/SEC. If the SEC had offered Florida State or Clemson they likely would have been gone (Note: The same is not true of the Big 12). We do know we had big Florida State boosters talking about it. We also know that Maryland left when the choice was there. None of that means the framework for the conference isn't strong, but the evidence of it being as strong as the SEC or Big Ten isn't quite there right now (give it another 10 years and it will be stronger though).

(07-08-2014 04:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I might suggest that if networks agreed to pay the way of certain schools into a conference that they would not go down on the future rate they would pay for that school, but rather simply not go up quite as much on the others. Their motive for paying for the moves would be to create a more favorable advertising rate structure. While they may not want to pay more for those schools in the future, I think they would be diplomatic enough to mitigate that by simply offering less in the way of increases, , but not less specifically or as a whole.

And there is roughly a 1.5 million increase per school for simply eliminating the 5th share of the playoff money split. The SEC and Big 10 get that per team boost while likely adding 1 revenue generator and 1 paid for tag-along. The ACC could quite possibly better that figure slightly per team because they need only add 1 under the right conditions. The conference it benefits the least is the PAC who might be called upon to add 6. IMO that is the weak link in the division of playoff revenue approach. But the model the networks would be seeking would keep all 4 regions engaged through the semis and the nation watches the finals anyway so the net for them is the highest rate of advertising money throughout the playoffs.

So the way I see it the Big 10 and SEC would have an incentive to take 1 prize and an also ran because it could be orchestrated to generate overall revenue for both. The ACC should jump all over it. But I think the PAC would need two prizes to make it work and the question is are there really 4 prizes in the Big 12?

But as usual I can clearly see the logic out of which you operate.

I don't agree with the playoff. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be going for a 4 team playoff with just the power 4 conferences (essentially an 8 team playoff when you consider the CCGs).

That's a very different discussion, but I don't agree that will actually make the conferences more over the long haul. The biggest reason for that is that I just don't see the regular season interest nationally remaining. If the path to the playoff is through the conferences only, then there is a lot less reason to care about the early season out of conference games and, even in-conference, a lot of games are less valuable until you get to November. Over the short run this might not matter, but over the long run, I think it matters a lot. A mini-NFL structure just won't work right with as many teams as we are talking about and be able to sustain the national interest throughout the season we currently have. Granted, I'm in a minority in that viewpoint.

(07-09-2014 09:25 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 07:47 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 11:06 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 07:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 06:42 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Interesting piece I read the past day: http://saturdayblitz.com/2014/07/07/conf...nt-future/

Not saying I agree with it but the article aims to follow the pattern of the past few years of realignment (new markets, etc.) and tries to come to a certain conclusion.

I don't see Boston College and Syracuse in the Big 10, but it would not be a huge surprise.

If N.C. State and Virginia Tech ever move to the SEC it will be to make room for a western division of 4 schools from the Big 12 and it would be a congenial move.

I think the Big 10 is done in the East without U.N.C. or Virginia. If they expand without those two it will be with 2 from the West perhaps Kansas and Oklahoma.

If the PAC can't attract Texas I don't see them expanding at all.

The ACC isn't as united as the SEC and B1G. Sure, they just got themselves a GoR, but that's a matter of schools realizing that they had a mutual interest of remaining in the conference. However, the B12 scenario the writer put out isn't as far-fetched as it appears today. It would depend on Texas, Notre Dame, Florida State, Oklahoma according among themselves to an association. Even years after its admittance, a lot of Florida State fans do not feel any affinity towards the culture of the ACC, which gives a lot of importance to Olympic sports and basketball. Maybe it's the older generation that has that attitude but it doesn't seem that different among the younger generations, either.

The last time the B12 hesitated on bringing along Clemson with Florida State, which ultimately led to Florida State re-committing to the ACC. Next time there's a chance it could be different. Where I may quibble with the writer is Pitt. I think Louisville might jump over them if they feel like everyone else is leaving. Maybe the writer feel academics or its historical rivalry with ND would favor Pitt over Louisville.

As for Cuse and BC, I think the ease in which BTN got their deals done with the pay TV systems in NJ, MD, DC and NYC may have perked up the ears of brass at Big Ten headquarters that it may not be as difficult to get BTN into the homes in Massachusetts and the rest of New York State as thought. Sure, cable may not as viable in the future but there still may be a BTN of some kind, whether it's streaming or not. Excluding NYC, the population of the state is roughly over 11,000,000, which is still considerable. Yes, downstate has the disproportionate number of residents. The problem is the economy in the rest of the state has been struggling for a long time. But getting into the systems downstate could help mitigate that factor. Massachusetts has under 6.6 million now, mostly concentrated around Boston. Boston is also the main city in New England. I think if the Big Ten realizes that it can't move past the Potomac then this would be a Plan C (Plan B being KU/OU).

You lost any credibility with your opening sentence.

I think ACC unity has increased a lot and will continue to. I also think the Big Ten/SEC had no chance to take several core ACC programs in the last couple of years (before the grant of rights, now it would be impossible anyway). If the Big Ten could have taken Virginia or North Carolina (or probably Georgia Tech), they would have taken them over Rutgers.

With all that said, I don't think any credibility was lost by saying it wasn't as united the Big Ten/SEC. If the SEC had offered Florida State or Clemson they likely would have been gone (Note: The same is not true of the Big 12). We do know we had big Florida State boosters talking about it. We also know that Maryland left when the choice was there. None of that means the framework for the conference isn't strong, but the evidence of it being as strong as the SEC or Big Ten isn't quite there right now (give it another 10 years and it will be stronger though).

Anyone relinquishes any credibility when they start to make absolute statements that have no basis. How would he know the "mind" of the ACC, much less have the same inner knowledge of the SEC and the B1G?

RE: FSU and Clemson
FSU would probably have gone to the SEC. There are a lot of their powerful boosters that have never forgiven their administration for passing on the SEC in favor of the ACC. There are also a lot of folks in the ACC that would not shed any tears about not having to listen to all of the whinning either.
Clemson is a different story , I doubt they would have left. You should never underestimate Clemson as an academic institution and the power that their faculty and administration have regardless of what you read around here from some of their "supporters".
Besides the folks at Clemson are smart and they know that in the SEC the best best they can hope for is to become another Arkansas.

RE: Maryland (and South Carolina)
Maryland and South Carolina were the two institutions that were the driving force to get the ACC formed. Now isn't that a surprise!
They both left for the same reason, bruised egos. When each realized that they weren't "it" in their own creation.......they picked up their ball and went home.

(07-08-2014 11:06 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 07:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 06:42 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Interesting piece I read the past day: http://saturdayblitz.com/2014/07/07/conf...nt-future/

Not saying I agree with it but the article aims to follow the pattern of the past few years of realignment (new markets, etc.) and tries to come to a certain conclusion.

I don't see Boston College and Syracuse in the Big 10, but it would not be a huge surprise.

If N.C. State and Virginia Tech ever move to the SEC it will be to make room for a western division of 4 schools from the Big 12 and it would be a congenial move.

I think the Big 10 is done in the East without U.N.C. or Virginia. If they expand without those two it will be with 2 from the West perhaps Kansas and Oklahoma.

If the PAC can't attract Texas I don't see them expanding at all.

The ACC isn't as united as the SEC and B1G. Sure, they just got themselves a GoR, but that's a matter of schools realizing that they had a mutual interest of remaining in the conference. However, the B12 scenario the writer put out isn't as far-fetched as it appears today. It would depend on Texas, Notre Dame, Florida State, Oklahoma according among themselves to an association. Even years after its admittance, a lot of Florida State fans do not feel any affinity towards the culture of the ACC, which gives a lot of importance to Olympic sports and basketball. Maybe it's the older generation that has that attitude but it doesn't seem that different among the younger generations, either.

The last time the B12 hesitated on bringing along Clemson with Florida State, which ultimately led to Florida State re-committing to the ACC. Next time there's a chance it could be different. Where I may quibble with the writer is Pitt. I think Louisville might jump over them if they feel like everyone else is leaving. Maybe the writer feel academics or its historical rivalry with ND would favor Pitt over Louisville.

As for Cuse and BC, I think the ease in which BTN got their deals done with the pay TV systems in NJ, MD, DC and NYC may have perked up the ears of brass at Big Ten headquarters that it may not be as difficult to get BTN into the homes in Massachusetts and the rest of New York State as thought. Sure, cable may not as viable in the future but there still may be a BTN of some kind, whether it's streaming or not. Excluding NYC, the population of the state is roughly over 11,000,000, which is still considerable. Yes, downstate has the disproportionate number of residents. The problem is the economy in the rest of the state has been struggling for a long time. But getting into the systems downstate could help mitigate that factor. Massachusetts has under 6.6 million now, mostly concentrated around Boston. Boston is also the main city in New England. I think if the Big Ten realizes that it can't move past the Potomac then this would be a Plan C (Plan B being KU/OU).

The type of moves you are speaking of were best reflected in the 3 x 20 models we played around with a year ago.

Add Pitt, Syracuse, B.C., N.D., Virginia and Duke to the Big 10, add North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Florida State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech to the SEC, and add Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and either Baylor, T.C.U., or B.Y.U. to the PAC and you get the rough idea. Each has 4 divisions of 5, internal conference semis and a final. The 4 team N.C. playoff takes the 3 champs and the best at large. The Big 10 and SEC culture are preserved and the PAC gets 3 national brands and 8 central time zone venues. That's as balanced as it is ever going to be.

If we move to 4 conferences there will always be two weaker ones and the Big 10 and SEC will always be the strongest. If we stay at 5 conferences the SEC and Big 10 will be on one tier, the ACC and PAC on another and the Big 12 will never make up for their issues demographically. That's really how I see it.

Furthermore as the economy continues to slip (and it is in spite of the FED's artificial stimulus by controlling commodities through ETF trades and artificially keeping interest rates low, which keeps most money still flowing into inflated stocks) the emphasis for schools will be keeping the overhead low which in turn means intentionally more regional play especially for minor sports. Therefore any future realignment will likely emphasize close regional play and the second priority will be in trying to remain true to the conferences organizing principles. For the Big 10 that will be academics and for the SEC that will mean sticking to large public Southern universities. In spite of what they claim the PAC's organizing efforts have always been dictated by geography so by taking 8 mid western schools they can keep their Western alignment intact and preserve the core of the old Big 12.

We may not head in this direction for a decade or so, but it is my opinion that eventually all schools will want to play regionally and that economic motivations will take us to larger better balanced conferences (less overhead spread among more schools) with the divisions acting like the old smaller conferences within a bigger unit. But, we'll see.

(07-09-2014 01:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 11:06 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  The ACC isn't as united as the SEC and B1G. Sure, they just got themselves a GoR, but that's a matter of schools realizing that they had a mutual interest of remaining in the conference. However, the B12 scenario the writer put out isn't as far-fetched as it appears today. It would depend on Texas, Notre Dame, Florida State, Oklahoma according among themselves to an association. Even years after its admittance, a lot of Florida State fans do not feel any affinity towards the culture of the ACC, which gives a lot of importance to Olympic sports and basketball. Maybe it's the older generation that has that attitude but it doesn't seem that different among the younger generations, either.

The last time the B12 hesitated on bringing along Clemson with Florida State, which ultimately led to Florida State re-committing to the ACC. Next time there's a chance it could be different. Where I may quibble with the writer is Pitt. I think Louisville might jump over them if they feel like everyone else is leaving. Maybe the writer feel academics or its historical rivalry with ND would favor Pitt over Louisville.

As for Cuse and BC, I think the ease in which BTN got their deals done with the pay TV systems in NJ, MD, DC and NYC may have perked up the ears of brass at Big Ten headquarters that it may not be as difficult to get BTN into the homes in Massachusetts and the rest of New York State as thought. Sure, cable may not as viable in the future but there still may be a BTN of some kind, whether it's streaming or not. Excluding NYC, the population of the state is roughly over 11,000,000, which is still considerable. Yes, downstate has the disproportionate number of residents. The problem is the economy in the rest of the state has been struggling for a long time. But getting into the systems downstate could help mitigate that factor. Massachusetts has under 6.6 million now, mostly concentrated around Boston. Boston is also the main city in New England. I think if the Big Ten realizes that it can't move past the Potomac then this would be a Plan C (Plan B being KU/OU).

The type of moves you are speaking of were best reflected in the 3 x 20 models we played around with a year ago.

Add Pitt, Syracuse, B.C., N.D., Virginia and Duke to the Big 10, add North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Florida State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech to the SEC, and add Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and either Baylor, T.C.U., or B.Y.U. to the PAC and you get the rough idea. Each has 4 divisions of 5, internal conference semis and a final. The 4 team N.C. playoff takes the 3 champs and the best at large. The Big 10 and SEC culture are preserved and the PAC gets 3 national brands and 8 central time zone venues. That's as balanced as it is ever going to be.

If we move to 4 conferences there will always be two weaker ones and the Big 10 and SEC will always be the strongest. If we stay at 5 conferences the SEC and Big 10 will be on one tier, the ACC and PAC on another and the Big 12 will never make up for their issues demographically. That's really how I see it.

Furthermore as the economy continues to slip (and it is in spite of the FED's artificial stimulus by controlling commodities through ETF trades and artificially keeping interest rates low, which keeps most money still flowing into inflated stocks) the emphasis for schools will be keeping the overhead low which in turn means intentionally more regional play especially for minor sports. Therefore any future realignment will likely emphasize close regional play and the second priority will be in trying to remain true to the conferences organizing principles. For the Big 10 that will be academics and for the SEC that will mean sticking to large public Southern universities. In spite of what they claim the PAC's organizing efforts have always been dictated by geography so by taking 8 mid western schools they can keep their Western alignment intact and preserve the core of the old Big 12.

We may not head in this direction for a decade or so, but it is my opinion that eventually all schools will want to play regionally and that economic motivations will take us to larger better balanced conferences (less overhead spread among more schools) with the divisions acting like the old smaller conferences within a bigger unit. But, we'll see.

If we are to return to a form of regionalism then I think there would be some demand for more midwestern teams to balance out the eastern adds. So Kansas could be in the mix for the B1G, along with UConn. Kansas State can go to the PAC. ND could bring along Pitt, SU and BC to the PAC. I would like to see Kansas and Missouri reuniting.

B1G - Kansas, Missouri, UConn, Virginia, Iowa State, West Virginia
SEC - Duke, UNC, Clemson, FSU, VT, NCSU, GT
PAC - ND, Pitt, SU, BC, UT, TT, OU, KSU

SEC gets to keep the UNC/Duke rivalry plus reunite GT with former mates. ND would be an outlier but would be able to play Texas, USC, Stanford, Oklahoma and Arizona State. The PAC, meanwhile, gets access to eyeballs in the Eastern Time Zone. West Virginia doesn't have the academic chops but provide another good regional rival to Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia and Ohio State.

In any case, it doesn't preclude schools in the P3 from playing games OOC. Pitt could play Penn State OOC. Michigan State can play ND OOC. It is just that these wouldn't be yearly games.

(07-09-2014 09:25 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 01:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 11:06 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  The ACC isn't as united as the SEC and B1G. Sure, they just got themselves a GoR, but that's a matter of schools realizing that they had a mutual interest of remaining in the conference. However, the B12 scenario the writer put out isn't as far-fetched as it appears today. It would depend on Texas, Notre Dame, Florida State, Oklahoma according among themselves to an association. Even years after its admittance, a lot of Florida State fans do not feel any affinity towards the culture of the ACC, which gives a lot of importance to Olympic sports and basketball. Maybe it's the older generation that has that attitude but it doesn't seem that different among the younger generations, either.

The last time the B12 hesitated on bringing along Clemson with Florida State, which ultimately led to Florida State re-committing to the ACC. Next time there's a chance it could be different. Where I may quibble with the writer is Pitt. I think Louisville might jump over them if they feel like everyone else is leaving. Maybe the writer feel academics or its historical rivalry with ND would favor Pitt over Louisville.

As for Cuse and BC, I think the ease in which BTN got their deals done with the pay TV systems in NJ, MD, DC and NYC may have perked up the ears of brass at Big Ten headquarters that it may not be as difficult to get BTN into the homes in Massachusetts and the rest of New York State as thought. Sure, cable may not as viable in the future but there still may be a BTN of some kind, whether it's streaming or not. Excluding NYC, the population of the state is roughly over 11,000,000, which is still considerable. Yes, downstate has the disproportionate number of residents. The problem is the economy in the rest of the state has been struggling for a long time. But getting into the systems downstate could help mitigate that factor. Massachusetts has under 6.6 million now, mostly concentrated around Boston. Boston is also the main city in New England. I think if the Big Ten realizes that it can't move past the Potomac then this would be a Plan C (Plan B being KU/OU).

The type of moves you are speaking of were best reflected in the 3 x 20 models we played around with a year ago.

Add Pitt, Syracuse, B.C., N.D., Virginia and Duke to the Big 10, add North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Florida State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech to the SEC, and add Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and either Baylor, T.C.U., or B.Y.U. to the PAC and you get the rough idea. Each has 4 divisions of 5, internal conference semis and a final. The 4 team N.C. playoff takes the 3 champs and the best at large. The Big 10 and SEC culture are preserved and the PAC gets 3 national brands and 8 central time zone venues. That's as balanced as it is ever going to be.

If we move to 4 conferences there will always be two weaker ones and the Big 10 and SEC will always be the strongest. If we stay at 5 conferences the SEC and Big 10 will be on one tier, the ACC and PAC on another and the Big 12 will never make up for their issues demographically. That's really how I see it.

Furthermore as the economy continues to slip (and it is in spite of the FED's artificial stimulus by controlling commodities through ETF trades and artificially keeping interest rates low, which keeps most money still flowing into inflated stocks) the emphasis for schools will be keeping the overhead low which in turn means intentionally more regional play especially for minor sports. Therefore any future realignment will likely emphasize close regional play and the second priority will be in trying to remain true to the conferences organizing principles. For the Big 10 that will be academics and for the SEC that will mean sticking to large public Southern universities. In spite of what they claim the PAC's organizing efforts have always been dictated by geography so by taking 8 mid western schools they can keep their Western alignment intact and preserve the core of the old Big 12.

We may not head in this direction for a decade or so, but it is my opinion that eventually all schools will want to play regionally and that economic motivations will take us to larger better balanced conferences (less overhead spread among more schools) with the divisions acting like the old smaller conferences within a bigger unit. But, we'll see.

If we are to return to a form of regionalism then I think there would be some demand for more midwestern teams to balance out the eastern adds. So Kansas could be in the mix for the B1G, along with UConn. Kansas State can go to the PAC. ND could bring along Pitt, SU and BC to the PAC. I would like to see Kansas and Missouri reuniting.

B1G - Kansas, Missouri, UConn, Virginia, Iowa State, West Virginia
SEC - Duke, UNC, Clemson, FSU, VT, NCSU, GT
PAC - ND, Pitt, SU, BC, UT, TT, OU, KSU

SEC gets to keep the UNC/Duke rivalry plus reunite GT with former mates. ND would be an outlier but would be able to play Texas, USC, Stanford, Oklahoma and Arizona State. The PAC, meanwhile, gets access to eyeballs in the Eastern Time Zone. West Virginia doesn't have the academic chops but provide another good regional rival to Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia and Ohio State.

In any case, it doesn't preclude schools in the P3 from playing games OOC. Pitt could play Penn State OOC. Michigan State can play ND OOC. It is just that these wouldn't be yearly games.

I can't see the Big 10 taking W.V.U. based on academics. But your general theory is headed in the right direction. Should we ever find ourselves in a P3 I would look for 10 conference games and 1 out of conference game against each of the other two conferences. Such an arrangement would help with the final division of schools. For instance a Big 10 bound Kansas could have Kansas State as their PAC game and Missouri as their SEC game. There is a lot of flexibility with that model.

Check this out! GT almost went back to the SEC in 1990.

http://www.nationalreview.com/phi-beta-c...nie-reeves

Quote:Thinking back, I know when the problems arose regarding athletics wagging the academic tail at UNC. I sat beside Atlantic Coast Conference commissioner John Swofford during a luncheon at the Kenan-Flagler School of Business at UNC in 1990, the day of the announcement Florida State University was joining the conference in 1991. Little did I know I was a witness to history to come when I asked Swofford why a conference composed of top-level institutions of higher learning was accepting a former all-female teacher’s college with scant scholastic prestige. The answer? Georgia Tech had informed the conference it was pulling out to join the Southeast Conference unless the ACC landed a Florida TV market school.

Wasn't it an academics issue the reason why GT left the SEC in the first place? This is coming from a UNC-CH alum. I don't want to get into the politics of the author but this is quite a bombshell. Who knew that Georgia Tech at one time held the future of the conference in its hands?

If GT were a power in FB and MBB again then that combined with their academics and location in the South's main hub would give them immense political power in any conference.

They're easy to ignore right now because of their poor performance the last decade but if they re-emerge, they can and will be a major force.

(07-10-2014 05:38 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Check this out! GT almost went back to the SEC in 1990.

http://www.nationalreview.com/phi-beta-c...nie-reeves

Quote:Thinking back, I know when the problems arose regarding athletics wagging the academic tail at UNC. I sat beside Atlantic Coast Conference commissioner John Swofford during a luncheon at the Kenan-Flagler School of Business at UNC in 1990, the day of the announcement Florida State University was joining the conference in 1991. Little did I know I was a witness to history to come when I asked Swofford why a conference composed of top-level institutions of higher learning was accepting a former all-female teacher’s college with scant scholastic prestige. The answer? Georgia Tech had informed the conference it was pulling out to join the Southeast Conference unless the ACC landed a Florida TV market school.

Wasn't it an academics issue the reason why GT left the SEC in the first place? This is coming from a UNC-CH alum. I don't want to get into the politics of the author but this is quite a bombshell. Who knew that Georgia Tech at one time held the future of the conference in its hands?

I'm betting you are a young guy and that you were not yet born when Georgia Tech left the SEC. It wasn't over academics. It was over a sports rivalry with Alabama in which they felt slighted and they left at the urging of Bobby Dodd whom they considered to be their best coach ever. Dodd wanted signing restrictions to keep schools like Alabama and Oklahoma from over signing and stockpiling great players, including many who would never see college playing time. Before scholarship limits schools would sign as many as they wished as long as scholarships were available. Then following an intentional cheap shot against a Tech all star in the Alabama game (one people believe Bear Bryant ordered) Dodd got angry enough to start the two year process of withdrawal from the SEC. You have to understand that Tech's football history was almost as storied as Alabama's at that point in time. Since then it has been all Alabama. Tech withdrew (I think in '65) and became an independent and then faded into obscurity until Bobby Ross led them to a share of the title in '89-90.

If the argument of academics has been instilled into this issue it is revisionism plain and simple. It was simply an ongoing gamesmanship between Bryant and Dodd and the resentment born out of that which led to the separation.

Jr here #11

The AAC's HQ is still in Rhode Island.

(07-11-2014 01:55 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Jr here #11

The AAC's HQ is still in Rhode Island.

Unpack that comment for us a bit. I think I see some of what you are saying but being a bit more unfamiliar with the AAC I may not quite grasp the total significance of what you are telling us with that observation.

(07-11-2014 04:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:55 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Jr here #11

The AAC's HQ is still in Rhode Island.

Unpack that comment for us a bit. I think I see some of what you are saying but being a bit more unfamiliar with the AAC I may not quite grasp the total significance of what you are telling us with that observation.

Jr., The AAC HQ is in the same building, same space, and same employee staff
that used to be known as The Big East. Mike Aresco, after the C7 split, told the bball schools go find your own HQ somewhere else. However he has no plans to move the HQ into the footprint of the AAC LOL, because there is no comfort level relative to who he thinks will be in the conference even in the short term.

Kinda funny, The cash rich SEC pay $1 a year for their HQ space in Birmingham.

(07-11-2014 05:10 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 04:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:55 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Jr here #11

The AAC's HQ is still in Rhode Island.

Unpack that comment for us a bit. I think I see some of what you are saying but being a bit more unfamiliar with the AAC I may not quite grasp the total significance of what you are telling us with that observation.

Jr., The AAC HQ is in the same building, same space, and same employee staff
that used to be known as The Big East. Mike Aresco, after the C7 split, told the bball schools go find your own HQ somewhere else. However he has no plans to move the HQ into the footprint of the AAC LOL, because there is no comfort level relative to who he thinks will be in the conference even in the short term.

Kinda funny, The cash rich SEC pay $1 a year for their HQ space in Birmingham.

Thanks for the explanation. I knew they kept the same headquarters I just wondered if there was a political relevance to that. I agree that their situation could be quite tenuous.

Headquarters often don't move and their location usually isn't all that important. I know the WAC had there's in Denver (probably still do) long after Colorado State left to help form the Mountain West.